About your Search

20121010
20121010
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
in 1986 but are staring us in the face today. first, a much larger and much more dangerous deficit and second, a dramatic increase been income and inequality. old-style tax reform could make both conditions worse. but don't dismiss the old framework lightly. credit for the 1986 reform law belongs to democrats like bill bradley in the senate. just as much as to president reagan. as a member of the house back then, i not only voted for it, but i whipped the votes to make sure it passed. i was on the committee set up by dan rostenkowski to get it done. the approach made a good deal of sense at the time. then, as now, the code was littered with egregious loopholes that needed to be reformed. recall the so-called passive law schools that were in place back then. they allowed wealthy taxpayers to gain the system. someone could invest in a bowling alley and then, if the bowling alley lost money, they could take a write off many times larger than their initial money incestment of their entire income tax liability. we need to get rid of such a gimmicky tax shelter. paring these loopholes al
dust of trickle-down economics will somehow erase any damage to the deficit or hold harmless the middle class -- it is a mirage. it is not realistic. the broader issues of tax reform are something that very much interest the president of united states, but has always -- his approach is always that everyone has to pay their fair share, everyone has to pay their -- everyone has to get a fair shot. in the debate he is having with the election and has been having with republicans on capitol hill, if we take a balanced approach that includes increased revenues by asking millionaires and billionaires to pay a little bit more, we can reduce our deficit significantly -- $4 trillion -- while making sure that the middle class does not have its taxes go up and making sure that we invest in education and infrastructure and innovation. the alternative choice that has been presented is that we should lower taxes for millionaires and billionaires and in order to pay for that, we have to turn medicare into a voucher program. we have to get investments in education and innovation, research and developme
competitiveness for the economy. another important element is the public sector deficit, and the stability of the government debt . another important structural reform is being put into the spanish constitution, the financial stability law. that means that the government is going to be more able to meet their objectives and to put a degree of control on the expenses and the deficit. the government can control the expenditures from the central government. another part of the government. you have unique tools in order to make that complied. now, the government as the proper tools to address these issues. in the process of addressing the fiscal situation, we have a totally out of control deficit in year 2009. deficit exceeding 11% of its gdp. now we and the royal of reducing the deficit. the very important issue is about the capacity of the government to get to the 6% public sector deficits. as the greek of skepticism in the markets, the capacity of the government. the government is confident that we can get to this figure. if they work to get their it will be very important positive message
would call these gimmicks, the full ten year cost of this bill has of $460 billion deficit. the second has a one half trillion dollar deficit. probably the most cynical gimmick in this bill is something that we all probably agree on. we don't think we should cut doctors' 21% next year. we stop those cuts from occurring every year for the last seven years. we all call this the toxics. well, according to your numbers it cost her her $71 billion. it was in the first iteration of all these bills. because it was a big price tag and made the score look bad, may look like a deficit, that provision was taken out and has been going on in stand-alone legislation. ignoring these costs does not remove them from the backs of taxpayers. hiding spending does not reduce spending. and so when you take a look of this is just as not add up. let's finish with the cost curve. we bending the cost curve down or up? well, if you look at your own chief actuary of medicare revenue up. he is time we are going up $222 billion, adding more to the unsustainable fiscal situation we have. and so when you take a look
for the economy. another important element is a private set her deficit. wow, another important reform has been to put into the constitution, a financial stability law, that means that the government is going to be more able to meet their objectives and to put a degree on the expand says and the deficit of the regional suspense, which is part of the issue because the expenditures from the central government, another part of the government in which you have tools in order to make them comply with your objectives. at the government has proper tools. and in the process of the fiscal situation as we see in this chart, we have a totally out-of-control deficits in the year 2009 with a deficit exceeding 11% of the gdp and now we are to reducing the step thursday of the very important issue and what the markets wonder if the capacity of the government to get to the 6.3%. there is a degree in the market and the capacity, but the government is confident that she can get this figure and i think it would be a very important message for the market. if it's able to comply with the objective of direction and
also. actually doing quite well. our neighbor to the south, fiscal deficits. monetary policy. a better job creating jobs and there. as much as we can. >> implicit in all of this, we the united states and not doing as well as we should. let's turn inward. how worried are you and how much are you planning for the fiscal cliff? >> there has is the big deal. when the crisis happens, the debt tween crisis, we spend 50 to $100 million preparing. the complexity of that happening in global financial markets, real failure. the fiscal cliff is not quite that because it is more predictable, but we have a fiscal clef. going through to make sure we understand all of it. we will be prepared. j.p. morgan will survive the fiscal cliff. i think it's terrible policy to allow. the reason i think it's bad, there are potential outcomes. i would defy. therefore it is irresponsible policy to say, let's see. lets us see. let's try to avoid that. it won't happen on midnight dec. 31st. it will happen now. this is bad. the margin go higher. don't go, don't buy. wait and see. that is a recession. this people pull
and creating jobs. >> your also worried about the deficit. clearly america has large and ever-growing deficits. the proposed a tax cut. that is defecit spending. >> this is a two-step deal. everybody knows we need the big deal. we talk about that and 30 seconds. we're not going to get to the big deal by jumping off the bridge. what we're saying is that it is not the right thing to do to have the largest tax increase in the history of america and to have up $1.20 trillion worth of spending cuts that do not even look at medicare and medicaid across the board without thinking through what is the deal is going to be. anybody from either party should come to a realization that the big deal counts. all we need to do is get a small part of an extension. when you talk about these taxes and spending, it cannot be done by 10 people in the back room. it has to be done in normal order. they are the only people that understand what you're in those bills. >> to and if you really think we're going to jump off a fiscal cliff? >> i think it is at least that the tax cut scheduled to expire to expire. maybe slig
is he's talking about tax cuts and deficit reduction at the same time. and the pew poll that came out earlier this week, wolf, said six in ten voters believe that romney is promising more than he can deliver. one reason bill clinton's speech was so popular at the democratic convention was he said the arithmetic doesn't add up. so you can push is this just rhetoric during a campaign, or is this real? if you want to close tax loopholes, okay, fine. what loopholes would you close? he's got to answer that. and so far hasn't done it. >> his argument is i don't want to put all that out right now. because if he's president, he's going to have to negotiate all those issues with democrats. and why put your own position out right now. >> sure. >> i don't know if his argument's going to necessarily hold. that's another matter. a lot of folks have seen romney over these past couple weeks at the debate, in the interview with me, moving more towards the center. do you see that? >> i did. i saw that particularly in your interview when he talked about the wealthy and how his tax plan would affect the
is the lineup in the case as far as the deficits, who will hear it and decide? >> only eight justices will decide because justice elena kagan is recused having worked. so eight justices. it's a pretty good bet that for more conservative justices will vote to if not strike down entirely, limit the use of race. the others will go the other way and as usable, justice anthony kennedy will hold the deciding vote. he has on the one hand said some positive things about using race and about the importance of diversity. on the other hand, he's never in his career and voted to uphold an affirmative action plan so she is a real wild card. >> is it possible this could be a 4-4 decision? >> it's not likely that it's possible and if it were, that would have the effect without opinion and without reasoning from the supreme court automatically affirming the decision below which had up held the texas program manning the split would equal that affirmative action stays the way we know it today. >> is the university of texas the only school that uses this type of system? >> that's right this combination
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)